We wish Ken Clarke luck with his drafting, though we are not convinced he can
deliver.

The review of family justice published last year by the former Whitehall mandarin David Norgrove made depressing reading. It described a system characterised by mutual distrust, lack of leadership and incoherence. The consequences for children caught up in it have been wretched. The average childcare case in the county courts now takes more than 15 months to complete, often far longer, while it takes on average 31 months to complete an adoption. As Norgrove pointed out, this is an age in the life of a child.

The report has formed the basis for yesterday’s proposals by the Government to re-model the system by accelerating proceedings while at the same time removing, as far as possible, the bitterness and anger such cases frequently generate. Divorced and separated fathers will have stronger rights, as will grandparents. There will also be a

six-month time limit for care and adoption cases in the courts. Central to the reforms are new regulations that will allow children caught up in marital break-ups to enjoy an ongoing relationship with both parents. The extent to which this desirable goal can be achieved will be a measure of the efficacy of these changes. Worryingly, it is on this specific point that the Government has gone against the report. Having initially supported the idea of a legal right for a child to have a continuing relationship with both parents after divorce, Norgrove changed tack. After studying a similar statutory system in Australia, he concluded that it would lead to a field day for lawyers and cause “confusion, misinterpretation and false expectations”.

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, appears untroubled by these cautionary words. He said yesterday that both parents had responsibilities towards their child while the child is entitled to try to maintain contact with both parents. Mr Clarke said this should be enshrined in law on the grounds that “there are too many people who think it’s not being applied”. He undertook to re-draft the law in such a way that guarantees joint access without replicating the “disaster” of the Australian system. He wisely stopped short of supporting a statutory right to equal access, for such a measure really would be a legal nightmare.

We wish Mr Clarke luck with his drafting, though we are not convinced he can deliver. In reality, the best way to resolve most such cases is through mediation. Those that do end up before the courts should be expedited as swiftly as possible for the emotional well-being of the child. We too often lose sight of the fact that it is the child’s interests – not that of one or other of the parents – that must always be paramount.